Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd t/a No Finance Cars v Diamond Panelbeaters and Towing CC (2022-008554) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1168 (11 September 2023)
The High Court held that a towing company failed to prove a salvage lien over two vehicles and ordered them returned to the owner.
Khoeli v Minister of Police and Others (739/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 142 (26 August 2019)
The High Court reviewed and set aside the police decision to forfeit 44 cattle allegedly imported without a permit, holding that the applicant was not properly notified.
Magopane and Another v Bushbuckridge Municipality and Another (50124/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 706 (30 September 2014)
The High Court upheld a res judicata point in limine and dismissed applicants’ declaratory relief over stands at Dingleydale Trust.
Madodza (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (38906/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 165 (15 August 2012)
The court held that the applicant was not in lawful possession of the vehicles at the commencement of business rescue proceedings, as the finance agreements had been cancelled and court orders for the return of the vehicles were granted prior to business rescue. Section 133(1) of the Companies Act only protects property belonging to or lawfully in the possession of the company. Furthermore, the applicant failed to appoint a business rescue practitioner within the prescribed period as required by section 129(3), rendering the business rescue proceedings a nullity. As a result, the applicant wa…
Source excerpt
SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd t/a Trail Star v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (657/2007) [2010] ZANCHC 49 (2 July 2010)
The court found that the appellant failed to establish locus standi, as it was neither the owner nor the possessor of the trailers at the time of seizure. Even if locus standi were established, the appellant could not lawfully possess the trailers due to tampered chassis numbers, as prohibited by section 68(6)(b) of the National Road Traffic Act. The appellant did not comply with the SAPVIN process to regularize the chassis numbers, and mere ownership or bona fide purchase does not confer lawful cause for possession. The prohibition applies regardless of whether the vehicles are kept on priva…
Source excerpt
Marvanic Development (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (232/05) [2006] ZASCA 18; 2007 (3) SA 159 (SCA) (20 March 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 68(6) of the National Road Traffic Act was designed to prevent possession of vehicles with falsified engine or chassis numbers, regardless of ownership. The fact that criminal charges were withdrawn does not entitle the appellants to the return of the vehicles, as their possession would remain 'without lawful cause' until the falsification is rectified in accordance with Regulation 56 of the National Road Traffic Regulations 2000. The court found no evidence of improvements justifying a lien, and procedural defects in the affidavits further underm…
Source excerpt
Minister van Wet en Orde v Erasmus en 'n Ander (204/1990) [1992] ZASCA 100; 1992 (3) SA 819 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 267 (A) [1992] 2 All SA 267 (A) (29 May 1992)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' retention rights over the vehicles, established through substantial repairs and improvements, survived the involuntary loss of possession caused by police seizure under section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found that lawful possession under section 31(1)(a) is determined by whether possession would be criminally wrongful, not by whether the possessor is the owner or derives possession from the owner. Since the respondents' possession would not be criminally wrongful, they were entitled to the return of the vehicles. The app…
Source excerpt
Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Datnis Motors (Midlands) (Edms) Bpk (149/1988) [1988] ZASCA 149; [1989] 4 All SA 379 (AD) (25 November 1988)
The court held that section 31(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the State to return seized property to the person from whom it was taken unless that person cannot lawfully possess it. Lawful possession excludes possession of stolen property, whether the unlawfulness arises from statute or common law. The burden of proof lies with the State to show that the property was stolen and remained stolen at the time of seizure. In this case, the State failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicles were stolen and remained stolen, as it did not exclude the reasonable possibi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
